Stereotyped scale items penalize nuanced agreement and reward blanket rejection

Evidence

On the other hand, the stereotyped nature of most of the statements left no room for complex or ambiguous matters to be articulated. Someone agreeing with two statements which might together have served to present a complex set of facts was worse off in terms of points than someone who simply rejected them both because in isolation they were not quite correct. In addition, agreement with two such statements would be interpreted as an irrational contradictoriness showing a tendency to make sweeping judgements. On the other hand, someone who preferred to reject a statement for fear of being misunderstood or appearing provocative was, to an extent, rewarded. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1771

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic critique that closed-ended survey instruments structurally cannot capture complexity — parallels to later debates in measurement theory and the critique of quantification generally. — connects to: Agreement and disagreement biases are personality traits, not just measurement errors — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 589

Broader Connections

• Agreement and disagreement biases are personality traits, not just measurement errors #expands (0.80) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 589